Hi all,

I see a few threads complaining about discussions for more recent
Windows versions than XP in this newsgroup. I totally understand that :)

More generally, how would you see the "future" of the microsoft.* hierarchy?
Do you think it worthwhile keeping it and adding new newsgroups for
Windows, Office 365, Teams, etc.? (basically for the products listed in
the Microsoft Community web forums)

Or, another alternative would be to just use the alt.* hierarchy which
already has very active newsgroups like alt.windows7.general,
alt.comp.os.windows-8 or alt.comp.os.windows-10. I bet there will soon
be one for Windows 11 (and if needed for other Microsoft products still
not representated in alt.*).

More background.
In 2010, Microsoft closed its public news server. The current list of
newsgroups in microsoft.* is exactly the official ones at that time.
That list of newsgroups was kept synchronized with other news servers
via special articles called "control articles" that I used to send. The
hierarchy then stays as-is after the closure of msnews.microsoft.com.
Now, a decade after, Microsoft still has not re-opened a news server
(and I doubt they will) so I'm wondering what to do. Of course, the
microsoft.* hierarchy can remain as-is. But is it the wish of its
users? That's the reason of my message since it appears this very
newsgroup is the most frequented.

There aren't many active newsgroups left in the microsoft.* hierarchy.
A quick look at the number of posts over the last year (July 2020-June
2021) gives:

microsoft.public.windowsxp.general 2083
microsoft.public.it.office.excel 1579
microsoft.public.fr.excel 1363
microsoft.public.de.money 609
microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion 487
microsoft.public.de.excel 338
microsoft.public.fr.outlook 335
microsoft.public.excel.programming 323
microsoft.public.excel.misc 254
microsoft.public.outlook.general 253
microsoft.public.fr.windows.server 204
microsoft.public.word.docmanagement 122
microsoft.public.fr.office 107
microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions 107
microsoft.public.excel 104
microsoft.public.es.excel 93
microsoft.public.fr.windowsxp 80
microsoft.public.adsi.general 76
microsoft.public.nntp.test 63
microsoft.public.nl.office.excel 58
microsoft.public.scripting.vbscript 55
microsoft.public.es.word 54
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support 51
microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.caching 45
microsoft.public.powerpoint 43
microsoft.public.it.office.access 43
microsoft.public.outlook 42
microsoft.public.test.here 38
microsoft.public.fr.access 36
microsoft.public.word.pagelayout 35
microsoft.public.word.newusers 30
microsoft.public.fr.word 30
microsoft.public.access 28
microsoft.public.mac.office.word 26
microsoft.public.greatplains 26
microsoft.public.es.access 26
microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp 26
microsoft.public.windows.server.general 22
microsoft.public.excel.setup 21
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion 20

With some newsgroups having 100% spam.
So, over the ~500 newsgroups in microsoft.*, very few are still active...

Is it really worth keeping it? Why not switch to already existing alt.*
newsgroups?
If new newsgroups were created in microsoft.* and obsolete ones removed,
we would end up with both alt.* and microsoft.* for discussions, which
is not efficient... Unless people decide to move from one to another
hierarchy, or keep participating in both of course.

Any thoughts to share?

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Et s'il n'en reste qu'un, je serai celui-là ! » (Victor Hugo)

"Julien �LIE" <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote

| Is it really worth keeping it? Why not switch to already existing alt.*
| newsgroups?
| If new newsgroups were created in microsoft.* and obsolete ones removed,
| we would end up with both alt.* and microsoft.* for discussions, which
| is not efficient... Unless people decide to move from one to another
| hierarchy, or keep participating in both of course.
| | Any thoughts to share?
|

I'd be all for killing groups that are both dead and
redundant. But I've had experiences of asking questions in dead
groups and getting good answers. There were legitimate
posters lurking. I also subscribe to two XP groups that are
active. I would think that if you kill one it should redirect
to the other.

So that would be my preference: Remove only those
groups that are dead *and* redundant, and if possible
redirect redundant live groups to one group. Alt XP and
Microsoft XP are the same to me. I don't care about the
name. With all other groups I subscribe to, there seems to
be only 1 relevant group. At one time I subscribed to
several for VB 5/6, several for Windows general prgramming,
and several for Windows scripting. But the VB/VBS topics
now seem to have only one active group each. Windows
programming forums have moved to Microsoft's walled garden
where all critical speech magically disappears.

So the XP redundancy is the only one I'm noticing. There are
no longer any other cases where I subscribe to two related
groups.

On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 18:53:49, Julien ÉLIE
<iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow
points raised):
>Hi all,
>
>I see a few threads complaining about discussions for more recent
>Windows versions than XP in this newsgroup. I totally understand that
>:)
>
>More generally, how would you see the "future" of the microsoft.* hierarchy?

Though it is non-ideal having the two hierarchies, I don't think it
would be a good idea to (TRY to) change how things are by now, at least
for the main (98/XP/7/10) ones; people know where the 'groups are, and
would be confused - or at least irritated - if new ones appeared. They
would just either post to both, or ignore the new one. (And killing
those in microsoft.* might not be successful world-wide.)

>Do you think it worthwhile keeping it and adding new newsgroups for
>Windows, Office 365, Teams, etc.? (basically for the products listed
>in the Microsoft Community web forums)

If there is sufficient traffic that is specific to one of those
products, _and_ a 'group doesn't _already_ exist, then creating a 'group
would be justified. I don't think most users would mind which hierarchy
it is in, though would be displeased if a 'group were created in more
than one.
>
>Or, another alternative would be to just use the alt.* hierarchy which
>already has very active newsgroups like alt.windows7.general,
>alt.comp.os.windows-8 or alt.comp.os.windows-10. I bet there will soon
>be one for Windows 11 (and if needed for other Microsoft products still
>not representated in alt.*).
>
If you think they will appear in alt.* anyway, then hold back on
creating any in microsoft.* .
[]
>The hierarchy then stays as-is after the closure of
>msnews.microsoft.com. Now, a decade after, Microsoft still has not
>re-opened a news server (and I doubt they will) so I'm wondering what
>to do. Of course, the microsoft.* hierarchy can remain as-is. But is
>it the wish of its users? That's the reason of my message since it
>appears this very newsgroup is the most frequented.

Is it still your personal responsibility to add or delete 'groups in
that hierarchy? _Can_ you even do so?
[]
>So, over the ~500 newsgroups in microsoft.*, very few are still active...
>
>Is it really worth keeping it? Why not switch to already existing
>alt.* newsgroups?
>If new newsgroups were created in microsoft.* and obsolete ones
>removed, we would end up with both alt.* and microsoft.* for
>discussions, which is not efficient... Unless people decide to move
>from one to another hierarchy, or keep participating in both of course.
>
>Any thoughts to share?
>
I tend to agree with Mayayana that you should only _remove_ (if you are
in a position to do so) ones that are both dead and not required.
Although I would express it as _do_ remove such. But how to test whether
they are required? Perhaps post a post asking "is anyone reading this
newsgroup", and if no replies - or other posts - in say three weeks, go
ahead.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Wisdom is the ability to cope. - the late (AB of C) Michael Ramsey,
quoted by Stephen Fry (RT 24-30 August 2013)

Hi Good Guy,

>> I see a few threads complaining about discussions for more recent
>> Windows versions than XP in this newsgroup. I totally understand that :)
>
> I haven't seen anybody complaining about anything. where have seen that?
> Which newsgroup?

This one: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
For instance in the thread "Upgrade Win7 or Win8 to Win10 for free and
then to Windows 11 for free" two days ago where I read "I know you like
Windows 11, but you're just spamming XP newsgroups."
Message-ID: <news:1rk9m36xzg4v3.l8c4qj1svuoq.dlg@40tude.net>

On second thoughts, it seems much less frequent than I believed at first
glance!

>> Or, another alternative would be to just use the alt.* hierarchy which
>> already has very active newsgroups like alt.windows7.general,
>> alt.comp.os.windows-8 or alt.comp.os.windows-10.
>
> Correct. The requirement to create a new newsgroup on the alt.*
> hierarchy is not as stringent as on the comp.*. The comp.* hierarchy is
> a cartel and they are running it like an old boys network.

I was speaking of newsgroups in microsoft.*, not comp.*

For instance, would it be interesting to have newsgroups like:
- microsoft.public.windows-10
- microsoft.public.windows-11
- microsoft.public.microsoft365
- microsoft.public.teams
- microsoft.public.yammer
....

besides the ones that already exist or could be created in alt.*?

>> I bet there will soon be one for Windows 11 (and if needed for other
>> Microsoft products still not representated in alt.*).
>
> Done by a couple of news servers!!

Good news!

> Windows 10 is made up 95% people who are in their mid to late 80s
> so they won't be around for long.

As long as such people are still there, let's listen to their
expectations :-)

>> Is it really worth keeping it? Why not switch to already existing
>> alt.* newsgroups?
>
> We have already switched to alt.* or free.*

Sure, but is there any point in trying to revive microsoft.* with new
newsgroups?

> There is no requirement for any server to carry
> all of the newsgroups. I know some private ones that are only carrying
> the newsgroups that they use.

I totally agree. I am just speaking of updating the list of microsoft.*
groups in:
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=MICROSOFT
so that news administrators who wish to follow that (centralized) list
of newsgroups may update the list of newsgroups they carry.
This list is currently the one of old msnews.microsoft.com news server
when it was stopped in 2010.

> Giganews will not carry any new
> newsgroups unless their customer asks for it. This makes sense to me.

I thought they were automatically creating newsgroups when their news
servers were fed with articles posted in newsgroups they were not
carrying. I may be wrong though.

>> If new newsgroups were created in microsoft.* and obsolete ones
>> removed, we would end up with both alt.* and microsoft.* for
>> discussions, which is not efficient... Unless people decide to move
>> from one to another hierarchy, or keep participating in both of course.
>>
>> Any thoughts to share?
>>
> You will find that the use of newsgroups is declining at an exponential
> rate. You'll be lucky to have these in 10 years time.

Then they'll be marked as defunct in 2030, as well as whole Usenet in a
Wikipedia page. Nonetheless, before it happens, it is still active.

So if I understand well your points, your suggestion is to keep the
microsoft.* hierarchy as-is, do nothing more on it, and use alt.* for
current and future needs?

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Bravo ! avec tes idées assommantes… » (Astérix)

Hi Mayayana,

> I'd be all for killing groups that are both dead and
> redundant. But I've had experiences of asking questions in dead
> groups and getting good answers. There were legitimate
> posters lurking.

I agree that considering a newsgroup as dead is not the same as "has not
received any post since 12 months".

> I would think that if you kill one it should redirect
> to the other.

Removing a newsgroup is not as trivial as it sounds because Usenet is
decentralized. Once a newsgroup exists, it cannot be "killed" (some
news servers will keep making it available).
Especially if we are speaking of an alt.* newsgroup.

> So that would be my preference: Remove only those
> groups that are dead *and* redundant, and if possible
> redirect redundant live groups to one group.

Such a redirection cannot be done with newsgroups (we're not in the web
world).

> Alt XP and Microsoft XP are the same to me. I don't care about the
> name. With all other groups I subscribe to, there seems to
> be only 1 relevant group.

So if alt.* and microsoft.* are the "same", is there any point in trying
to create new newsgroups in microsoft.* compared to alt.*?

> At one time I subscribed to
> several for VB 5/6, several for Windows general prgramming,
> and several for Windows scripting. But the VB/VBS topics
> now seem to have only one active group each. Windows
> programming forums have moved to Microsoft's walled garden
> where all critical speech magically disappears.

Is there a lack of Windows programming newsgroups? (Then why not try to
create them?) or a lack of active lurkers in these newsgroups?

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Ex nihilo nihil. » (Perse)

Hi John,

> Though it is non-ideal having the two hierarchies, I don't think it
> would be a good idea to (TRY to) change how things are by now, at least
> for the main (98/XP/7/10) ones; people know where the 'groups are, and
> would be confused - or at least irritated - if new ones appeared.

Yup, I see.

> They would just either post to both, or ignore the new one.

As the newsgroup for Windows 11 in alt.* still has not been widely
adopted because its creation is pretty recent, maybe an attempt to
create microsoft.public.windows11 (or any better name and position in
the hierarchy) would be worth trying?

> If there is sufficient traffic that is specific to one of those
> products, _and_ a 'group doesn't _already_ exist, then creating a 'group
> would be justified. I don't think most users would mind which hierarchy
> it is in, though would be displeased if a 'group were created in more
> than one.

Got it.

>> The hierarchy then stays as-is after the closure of
>> msnews.microsoft.com. Now, a decade after, Microsoft still has not
>> re-opened a news server (and I doubt they will) so I'm wondering what
>> to do.
>
> Is it still your personal responsibility to add or delete 'groups in
> that hierarchy? _Can_ you even do so?

I'm just a Usenet participant still having in heart that Usenet works
and responds to the wishes of its users.
At least I _can_ send a signed control message with the PGP key dating
back to 2007 to create a newsgroup in the microsoft.* hierarchy; news
server that have been configured to honour that key will normally create
it automatically. For the others, as it always had been in Usenet for
all hierarchies, it will be at the dicretion of their news administrators.

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Ex nihilo nihil. » (Perse)

On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 21:35:56, Julien ÉLIE
<iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow
points raised):
[]
>As the newsgroup for Windows 11 in alt.* still has not been widely
>adopted because its creation is pretty recent, maybe an attempt to
>create microsoft.public.windows11 (or any better name and position in
>the hierarchy) would be worth trying?
>
I cannot see the advantage in doing so, and given it exists - even if
not widely propagated yet - I think creating a second 'group with the
same purpose would just irritate users. On the whole, I think users do
not care where 'groups are; if they have any preference, it's probably
slightly for alt.* - partly because of bad memories of Microsoft's
controlling behaviour (even if this is incorrectly remembered), and
partly just because microsoft.public is a lot to type (and the ".public"
part is now meaningless).
[]
>>> The hierarchy then stays as-is after the closure of
>>>msnews.microsoft.com. Now, a decade after, Microsoft still has not
>>>re-opened a news server (and I doubt they will) so I'm wondering what >>>to do.
>> Is it still your personal responsibility to add or delete 'groups in
>>that hierarchy? _Can_ you even do so?
>
>I'm just a Usenet participant still having in heart that Usenet works
>and responds to the wishes of its users.
>At least I _can_ send a signed control message with the PGP key dating
>back to 2007 to create a newsgroup in the microsoft.* hierarchy; news
>server that have been configured to honour that key will normally
>create it automatically. For the others, as it always had been in
>Usenet for all hierarchies, it will be at the dicretion of their news
>administrators.
>
Do you have a feel for what proportion of the world's news server
administrators would still recognise your key? (For creation and
deletion, as they might be different.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

You know what the big secret about posh people is? Most of them are lovely.
- Richard Osman, RT 2016/7/9-15

"Julien �LIE" <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote

| So if alt.* and microsoft.* are the "same", is there any point in trying
| to create new newsgroups in microsoft.* compared to alt.*?
|

It wouldn't matter to me. I understand that the MS
groups are no longer actually MS. The groups I use are a
mix of ms, comp and alt.

|
| > At one time I subscribed to
| > several for VB 5/6, several for Windows general prgramming,
| > and several for Windows scripting. But the VB/VBS topics
| > now seem to have only one active group each. Windows
| > programming forums have moved to Microsoft's walled garden
| > where all critical speech magically disappears.
| | Is there a lack of Windows programming newsgroups? (Then why not try to
| create them?) or a lack of active lurkers in these newsgroups?
|

There are a variety of aspects to that. There used
to be lots of groups for VB, C++, COM, IE, Win32 API,
etc. There was also a large population of dabblers, small
software companies, in-house corporate programmers, etc.

When MS started their private web forums they
managed to get most of the people to switch over to
those forums.

Additionally, Microsoft have gradually de-emphasized
actual Window native code programming. They came out
with .Net, then WinRT, and so on. So the number of people
actually doing Windows programming is much smaller than
it used to be.

Then there's the fact that few people under 60 seem
to even be aware of Usenet. So I think it's all of those things:
Less people doing Windows programming and most people
who do are going to the MS forums where they can develop
a reputation for being a friend of MS and collect "medals"
next to their username. Maybe it would help if you gave
out medals and award icons. :)

Hi John,

> I cannot see the advantage in doing so, and given it exists - even if
> not widely propagated yet - I think creating a second 'group with the
> same purpose would just irritate users. On the whole, I think users do
> not care where 'groups are; if they have any preference, it's probably
> slightly for alt.* - partly because of bad memories of Microsoft's
> controlling behaviour (even if this is incorrectly remembered), and
> partly just because microsoft.public is a lot to type (and the ".public"
> part is now meaningless).

That makes sense.

> Do you have a feel for what proportion of the world's news server
> administrators would still recognise your key?

I don't, unfortunately. A decade has passed since the last control article.
If we assume the configuration of news server has not changed, the ones
that have this exact list of newsgroups:
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=MICROSOFT&only=checkgroups
are the ones that either recognized the key in 2010 or somehow are
synchronizing from time to time their list of newsgroups (for probably
the hierarchies they carry) with the centralized list hosted by isc.org.

--
Julien ÉLIE

« S.M.I.G. : Sesterce Minimum d'Intérêt Gaulois. » (Astérix)

Hi Mayayana,

> Additionally, Microsoft have gradually de-emphasized
> actual Window native code programming. They came out
> with .Net, then WinRT, and so on. So the number of people
> actually doing Windows programming is much smaller than
> it used to be.

OK, many thanks for your detailed response.

> Less people doing Windows programming and most people
> who do are going to the MS forums where they can develop
> a reputation for being a friend of MS and collect "medals"
> next to their username. Maybe it would help if you gave
> out medals and award icons. :)

Ha ha :-)
Kudos!

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Cuius cura non est, recedat. »

Hi Good Guy,

>> I was speaking of newsgroups in microsoft.*, not comp.*
>>
>> For instance, would it be interesting to have newsgroups like:
>> - microsoft.public.windows-10
>> - microsoft.public.windows-11
>> - microsoft.public.microsoft365
>> - microsoft.public.teams
>> - microsoft.public.yammer
>>
> There is no way to create new groups in Microsoft.* hierarchy. Microsoft
> won't allow that. Some servers can do that but as I said in the previous
> post, some big news-servers won't host them. They don't won't to get
> into trouble with Microsoft.

I'm not willing to start a troll but how do you know Microsoft would not
allow a microsoft.public.teams newsgroup? Are they against people
discussing the Microsoft products in a Usenet hierarchy? (a medium
"declining at an exponential rate", like you said) Do they similarly
disallow Reddit or web forums whose topic is "Microsoft Teams"?

> So in short, Microsoft hierarchy is what we have and can't be
> expanded any further.

I tend to disagree.
It's Usenet, the hierarchy can be expanded further. Propagation issues
is another matter. I know news server that do not carry alt.*; same
thing for any other hierarchy. Some news servers, well administrated by
fellows who are still involved in Usenet and have faith in it, will
reflect changes.

>> So if I understand well your points, your suggestion is to keep the
>> microsoft.* hierarchy as-is, do nothing more on it, and use alt.* for
>> current and future needs?
>>
> Correct. alt.* is pretty easy to handle and create new groups but
> Microsoft.* and comp is almost impossible.

Which does not imply it cannot be tried.
For another group than Windows 11 (for instance microsoft.public.edge if
the remaining community in Usenet deems it useful, or any other more
needed forum currently not existing elsewhere).

> Even Google Groups isn't creating any new forums.

Indeed. Their service, their rules I would say. They abandoned the
true spirite of Usenet several years ago...
Besides, I note they do not have alt.comp.os.windows-10 either, so it
won't mind much for the current discussion (new groups in alt.* and
microsoft.* will equally be ignored by Google Groups).

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Un sourire coûte moins cher que l'électricité mais donne autant de
lumière. » (Abbé Pierre)

Julien ÉLIE wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I see a few threads complaining about discussions for more recent
> Windows versions than XP in this newsgroup.  I totally understand that :)
>
> More generally, how would you see the "future" of the microsoft.*
> hierarchy?
> Do you think it worthwhile keeping it and adding new newsgroups for
> Windows, Office 365, Teams, etc.?  (basically for the products listed in
> the Microsoft Community web forums)
>
> Or, another alternative would be to just use the alt.* hierarchy which
> already has very active newsgroups like alt.windows7.general,
> alt.comp.os.windows-8 or alt.comp.os.windows-10.  I bet there will soon
> be one for Windows 11 (and if needed for other Microsoft products still
> not representated in alt.*).
>
>
>
> More background.
> In 2010, Microsoft closed its public news server.  The current list of
> newsgroups in microsoft.* is exactly the official ones at that time.
> That list of newsgroups was kept synchronized with other news servers
> via special articles called "control articles" that I used to send.  The
> hierarchy then stays as-is after the closure of msnews.microsoft.com.
> Now, a decade after, Microsoft still has not re-opened a news server
> (and I doubt they will) so I'm wondering what to do.  Of course, the
> microsoft.* hierarchy can remain as-is.  But is it the wish of its
> users?  That's the reason of my message since it appears this very
> newsgroup is the most frequented.
>
> There aren't many active newsgroups left in the microsoft.* hierarchy. A
> quick look at the number of posts over the last year (July 2020-June
> 2021) gives:
>
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general 2083
> microsoft.public.it.office.excel 1579
> microsoft.public.fr.excel 1363
> microsoft.public.de.money 609
> microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion 487
> microsoft.public.de.excel 338
> microsoft.public.fr.outlook 335
> microsoft.public.excel.programming 323
> microsoft.public.excel.misc 254
> microsoft.public.outlook.general 253
> microsoft.public.fr.windows.server 204
> microsoft.public.word.docmanagement 122
> microsoft.public.fr.office 107
> microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions 107
> microsoft.public.excel 104
> microsoft.public.es.excel 93
> microsoft.public.fr.windowsxp 80
> microsoft.public.adsi.general 76
> microsoft.public.nntp.test 63
> microsoft.public.nl.office.excel 58
> microsoft.public.scripting.vbscript 55
> microsoft.public.es.word 54
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support 51
> microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.caching 45
> microsoft.public.powerpoint 43
> microsoft.public.it.office.access 43
> microsoft.public.outlook 42
> microsoft.public.test.here 38
> microsoft.public.fr.access 36
> microsoft.public.word.pagelayout 35
> microsoft.public.word.newusers 30
> microsoft.public.fr.word 30
> microsoft.public.access 28
> microsoft.public.mac.office.word 26
> microsoft.public.greatplains 26
> microsoft.public.es.access 26
> microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp 26
> microsoft.public.windows.server.general 22
> microsoft.public.excel.setup 21
> microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion 20
>
> With some newsgroups having 100% spam.
> So, over the ~500 newsgroups in microsoft.*, very few are still active...
>
> Is it really worth keeping it?  Why not switch to already existing alt.*
> newsgroups?
> If new newsgroups were created in microsoft.* and obsolete ones removed,
> we would end up with both alt.* and microsoft.* for discussions, which
> is not efficient...  Unless people decide to move from one to another
> hierarchy, or keep participating in both of course.
>
> Any thoughts to share?

Nothing wrong with this one (ms.pub.winxp.gen).
It works just fine.

Hi Paul,

>> Any thoughts to share?
>
> Nothing wrong with this one (ms.pub.winxp.gen).
> It works just fine.

Sure!
This newsgroup, as well as all other still alive newsgroups in
microsoft.* (alive = with participants who would respond to a question
posted to it), must of course remain untouched.

The questions are:
1/ should new newsgroups be created in microsoft.*?
=> it seems that the wish of the persons who have responded until now is
"no, just use another hierarchy like alt.*".

2/ should dead newsgroups be removed?
=> it seems that the wish of the persons who have responded until now is
either "no" or "why not, if dead, a clean up would be good".

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Un sourire coûte moins cher que l'électricité mais donne autant de
lumière. » (Abbé Pierre)

I would try to generalise, combine groups to create critical mass. For
example, some questions apply to all versions of Windows or VB or Excel or
Word, or are largely interchageable.

If interested, send me a private message about reviving the usenet in
general, perhaps by producing an app that behaves like social media as a
front end. I for one, would still use tin from unix, but for the others.
Also make the hierarchies more like university departments, but avoid getting
too specialised. I've been to meetings on crowdsourcing where scientists
lament loss of usenet. It wudda helped to be able to network with scientists
during the pandemic the way we did in the 1990s. I studies innovation
management in the 1980s and those who oppose cross posting are anti innovation.
So are most who call for moderation when I can use kill files very expertly
in even the noisiest groups. Heck the first thing I kill is posts from google.

--
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus
blog: panix.com/~vjp2/ruminatn.htm - = - web: panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm
facebook.com/vasjpan2 - linkedin.com/in/vasjpan02 - biostrategist.com
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---

On 2021-7-1 21:30, Julien ÉLIE wrote:
> ...
> 2/ should dead newsgroups be removed?
> => it seems that the wish of the persons who have responded until now is
> either "no" or "why not, if dead, a clean up would be good".
>
I second that dead newsgroups should be removed, in a very cautious
manner: Announce calling for comment of removing in the target
newsgroups and relative newsgroups on most if not all servers, then wait
for 1 or 2 years (keep announcing once a month); If no one gives any
meaningful opposition, then delete the group.

--
Regards,
Lu Wei
IM: xmpp:luweitest@riotcat.org
PGP: 0xA12FEF7592CCE1EA

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 14:21:44 +0800, Lu Wei wrote:
>>
> I second that dead newsgroups should be removed, in a very cautious
> manner: Announce calling for comment of removing in the target
> newsgroups and relative newsgroups on most if not all servers, then wait
> for 1 or 2 years (keep announcing once a month); If no one gives any
> meaningful opposition, then delete the group.

I wouldn't delete history.

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 at 19:04:07, JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
>On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 14:21:44 +0800, Lu Wei wrote:
>>>
>> I second that dead newsgroups should be removed, in a very cautious
>> manner: Announce calling for comment of removing in the target
>> newsgroups and relative newsgroups on most if not all servers, then wait
>> for 1 or 2 years (keep announcing once a month); If no one gives any
>> meaningful opposition, then delete the group.
>
>I wouldn't delete history.

If by history you mean old posts, then yes, there is reason to preserve
them if someone's willing to provide the storage; I still think of
newsgroups as a transient thing, with the onus on me to "mark as keep"
any that I find useful. However, some newsservers - especially paid ones
- now keep some newsgroups for a long time, sometimes many years.

I still think removal - with extreme caution as suggested by Lu Wei - of
dead ones is a good thing, if they're really dead. With removal being
that they no longer accept new posts or appear in the lists of current
'groups that newsservers provide when prompted.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I remember a lot of questions on a vocalist forum about the problems singing
"There is a balm in Gilead" without making it sound like a security alert. -
Linda Fox in UMRA, 2010-11-19

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 19:05:48 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
> If by history you mean old posts, then yes, there is reason to preserve
> them if someone's willing to provide the storage; I still think of
> newsgroups as a transient thing, with the onus on me to "mark as keep"
> any that I find useful. However, some newsservers - especially paid ones
> - now keep some newsgroups for a long time, sometimes many years.
>
> I still think removal - with extreme caution as suggested by Lu Wei - of
> dead ones is a good thing, if they're really dead. With removal being
> that they no longer accept new posts or appear in the lists of current
> 'groups that newsservers provide when prompted.

Well, removing a newsgroup from the list basically delete the newsgroup
already, from that server's users' POV. Just like how websites "delete"
things, but actually, simply hide the data or mark the data as non-usable.

In terms of storage space, if the free space is becoming insufficent, then
deleting old posts or removing least used (i.e. both read & write; not just
write) newsgroups is not a questionable matter. It has to be done.

Otherwise, there's no need to delete them. Unless the server simply don't
want to serve particular newsgroups.

Op 1-7-2021 om 15:30 schreef Julien ÉLIE:
> Hi Paul,
>
>>> Any thoughts to share?
>>
>> Nothing wrong with this one (ms.pub.winxp.gen).
>> It works just fine.
>
> Sure!
> This newsgroup, as well as all other still alive newsgroups in
> microsoft.* (alive = with participants who would respond to a question
> posted to it), must of course remain untouched.
>
> The questions are:
> 1/ should new newsgroups be created in microsoft.*?
> => it seems that the wish of the persons who have responded until now is
> "no, just use another hierarchy like alt.*".
>
> 2/ should dead newsgroups be removed?
> => it seems that the wish of the persons who have responded until now is
> either "no" or "why not, if dead, a clean up would be good".

Sorry for being so late...

1.
microsoft.* was the hierarchie from Microsoft.
So Microsoft is the one who should create new newsgroups.
(and of course they don't)

2.
If you remove dead Microsoft.* newsgroups,
some newsservers will delete them, but some don't.
The posters in the second group of newsservers cannot see
that the first group of newsservers has removed the newsgroup.
They have less chance for an answer.
I think it has no use to remove dead newsgroups.
And if they are dead, they have little bits :-)

I think it is strange that there is an "international" comp.* hierachie
where there are no newsgroups for win98, win2000, windows-xp,
windows7, windows8, windows10 and windows11....
Did they stop creating newsgroups after win95?

Rink

Hi Rink,

> I think it is strange that there is an "international" comp.* hierachie
> where there are no newsgroups for win98, win2000, windows-xp,
> windows7, windows8, windows10 and windows11....
> Did they stop creating newsgroups after win95?

Thanks for your answers.
The microsoft.* will very certainly remain as-is.

As for the comp.* hierarchy, why not ask in news.groups.proposals or
contact the Big Eight board?
https://www.big-8.org/

I reckon such newsgroups should exist, or at least general ones without
versions.

--
Julien ÉLIE

« L'ordinateur obéit à vos ordres, pas à vos intentions. »